| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/3/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36817 Activity:kinda low |
3/22 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151206,00.html Hey you fucking dumb ass pro-lifer conservatives, do you actually agree with this lame Fox News commentary? \_ No, I'm too stupid to type, so I can't respond to this you fucktard. \_ Ya know, I'm vehemently pro-choice as far as abortion goes, and am ambivalent on the Schiavo case, but I can't for the life of me what about this piece is so upsetting (well, except for the last paragraph, but I still don't really see how that merits your frothing at the mouth). Enlighten me? -alexf \_ I bet op is angry because the writer makes it sound like he's so reasonable but he's a filthy liar, and by being on TV at regular times gets both widespread distribution and credibility. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html In any case, I do agree with the Fox News guy in the sense that you shouldn't kill her by starvation. My opinion (and he doesn't say this) is, once you have established beyond a reasonable doubt her desire to die if she knew she were in an irreversible, persistent vegetative state, then she should be killed using something quicker. \_ Agreed. But assisted suicide with pills, injections, etc is illegal, and mostly because of conservatives. So now they're arguing how inhumane it is to let her starve when they also block euthanasia. Hypocrites. \_ Funny how Michael remembered she wanted to die only after receiving over a million dollars in a malpractice suit, money that was specifically awarded for her rehabilitation. You want to guess how much of that money was spent on Terri and how much on Michael's pro-euthanasia lawyer Felos? Felos' hospice is also under investigation for Medicare fraud for bringing in 150+ patients who should not have been there. This is the same hospice Terri was moved to. \_ You're right about him remembering her wishes after coicidentally receiving $1M, but lately he's been offered much more money to give up the fight and keep her tube in, and he's turned that money down. \_ taking the money is really not a possibility, it would make him look terrible. Plus, there will be plenty of money from book deals and film once Terri passes. \_ He *claims* he was offered $10M. I haven't seen anything to prove it. -emarkp \_ Would your opinion on the case be different if you believed he was arguing his position in good faith? \_ He can't stop the proceedings now, anyway. \_ The GOP loves vegetables and hates fruits. \_ Hilarious! This is the funniest thing i've seen on the motd in some time. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151206,00.html search) case argue it from deeply held and honestly held convictions. No one knows what Terri's thinking or even "if" she's thinking. Maybe years and years ago, she would have wished she were dead to see her self alive like she is today. And a nation rushes to make o ut living wills so that their intentions are never in doubt. If you were to ask a 20-something year old that when they were 40-somethi ng they'd have a debilitating disease that would slowly sap their streng th, their ability to walk and see, even think and move and that this dis ease would only worsen and likely kill them, they might put in writing: kill me first. But many who deal with such debilitating diseases fight on, live on, carr y on and go on. Just like the soldier who could never envision a life wi thout arms or legs, yet somehow adjusts and rues the day he ever thought of ending that life. "Life" is different things to different people and I don't think it's a b ad thing to cling to even while the life we cling to isn't perfect. For me, this much is clear: I think our presumed bias should be toward li fe. Let other countries explore euthanasia and killing someone mercifull y My fear is that as such logic progresses, it isn't always merciful. Something is very wrong in a country that can throw you in jail for not g iving your dog food and water, but not even care if you do the same to a human being. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html All RSS Feeds Editorial A Damaging Intervention Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A16 THE PROSPECT OF a disabled person slowly dying by virtue of a court order issued over the strenuous objections of her parents is enough to troubl e even the most ardent advocate of the "right to die." So Congress's lig htning-fast passage of special legislation to force the federal courts t o review Terri Schiavo's case might make a certain intuitive sense. Cert ainly one can feel only sympathy for the relatives torn apart by this ca se. But Congress has an obligation to rise above sympathy and intuition. Its precipitous action this weekend, supported by President Bush, was d amaging and unprincipled. Mrs Schiavo is not the first and will not be the last American to lapse into a persistent vegetative state and so confront her family with the d ecision of how long to preserve her life in the absence of any hope of r ecovery. Once such agonizing decisions divide families irreconcilably, a s they not infrequently do, there can be no winners. Had Mrs Schiavo left a living will so instru cting, she would be entitled to have her feeding tube withdrawn. In the absence of such a document, the state court system -- the traditional de cision maker in such disputes -- confronted the question of whether Mrs Schiavo would have wanted to be allowed to die or to live this sort of life. Notwithstanding the blithe claim s of politicians that they believe her to be conscious, a state appeals court in Florida wrote in 2001: "The evidence is overwhelming that There sa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state" and "at this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone. " In contrast to any n umber of ad hominem attacks on her husband, the court wrote that Michael Schiavo "has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years " and "has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care." And the appea ls court agreed that the lower court had "clear and convincing evidence" supporting its determination that she would not have chosen to continue the life she now has. Any of these judgments is subject to reasonable question. But the proceed ings of a state court in a matter of its traditional competence are not to be treated as just so many words on a piece of paper. Yet Congress has instructed the federal cou rts to consider this matter "de novo" -- that is, with no deference to t he facts the previous adjudication found -- and a federal district court in Florida began hearings yesterday on how to proceed. The US legal system is not supposed to be one of legislative "do-overs" in which Congress, if it doesn't like the outcome in a high-profile cas e, changes the rules on behalf of politically favored parties. It is sup posed to be a system where litigants know the rules in advance and under stand the jurisdictional boundaries of the courts that decide their case s Lawmakers may believe that they acted this weekend to save a life, bu t they also took a step that diminishes the rule of law. |